national

U.S., Japan review plans for retaking disputed islands

53 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2013 AFP

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

53 Comments
Login to comment

Don't be ridiculous. You're just China, barely out of 5000 years of poverty on an agrarian lifestyle that is the Chinese character. You're now living on the capitalist fumes of our global economy...and you have become addicted to the Western model.

A political upheaval is taking place, as the PRC is slowly being dissolved into six separate nations better equipped to prosper in the 21st century than this ungovernable behemoth that tries to be all things to all men. You have polluted China. You have laid waste to Chinese resources. You have ruined your relations with neighboring countries.

We welcome the three new nations of Tibet, Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang from the PRC's borderlands. We welcome the three new nations which the Han Chinese are now in the process of forming, based on the cultural watersheds of your three principal rivers. This is the future for peace and prosperity across the lands that were once called the PRC.

Fortunately for you, you have far-seeing businessmen, municipal officials and dissident PLA officers who recognize that your six new nations are far better positioned to compete in the global economy than the old PRC. If not for these visionaries in your midst, we would have no other solution than to shut you back down to dung carts and dung stoves.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let's not worry too much about China, because they're in a period of decline, health-wise. They're on a death-watch. They're in the process of committing suicide. How? By bad management.

I remember when pollution was so bad in Los Angeles that the world thought this was the worst place to live. And it was horrible. The highest PM2.5 level recorded in a 24-period in Los Angeles during those horrible days of pollution was 43 micrograms per cubic meter.

The people were choking to death. And that was at its highest level of 43 micrograms. Last Thursday morning in Beijing, the air quality was tested and found to contain 469 micrograms of PM2.5 per cubic meter. To the Chinese, I say: WHAT THE HELL HAVE YOU DONE???

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@sfjp330 very interesting. Perhaps could one say that China wants the US involved militarily and diplomatically in the region, based on its actions, as a diversion and side show to cover other actions? To the untrained eye?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nessie

The South will rise agin'? Where have I heard that before?

Of course, may be from here to Eternity. Giving up is not their volcabury.

It's Latin. You don't mean to say....they belonged to the Roman Empire this whole time. Whoa, game-changer!

Roman empire extincted long before 19th century. According Son of God, Roman have never set foot on Senkaku. How long it will take to sail from Rome to Senkaku?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire

Is Taiwan uninhabited?

Is Hokkaido and Ryuku uninhabited? Why did Japan grabbed Hokkaido or Ryuku? Ainu inhabited in Hokkaido and Taiwanese Aborigines inhabited in Formosa long before Japanese settled in Honshu.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Thank you Captain of the Chinese military vessel for your singularly distinctive accomplishment in locking on to the Japanese Coast Guard cutter (which oh by the way wasn't carrying offensive anti ship weapons) and thank you PRC for explaining it away as the Captains lone decision and using him as a patsy for either your terrible judgement (in allowing it to happen) or utter incompetence and lack of control of your forces. You just gave US more reasons to be in your proverbial shiza, along with justifying "the pivot", not that your puppet to the east (N. Korea) doesn't give US ample reason to be in your neighborhood (ps, you should consider reigning in Jr if you really want US to think about disengaging). For someone who claims they want the US out of the area and regional disputes, you sure have a funny way of giving US reasons not to be engaged and settling disputes diplomatically as you say you desire.

I would almost give anything to be back in Japan working with the JSDF on this one! NIPPON!!

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Okinawa or Ryuku was independent before . It will be independent again in the future.

The South will rise agin'? Where have I heard that before?

Is Terra Nullius Japanese name?

It's Latin. You don't mean to say....they belonged to the Roman Empire this whole time. Whoa, game-changer!

For the credibilty of your logic, Japan should claim Taiwan and Hainan as part of Okinawa.

Is Taiwan uninhabited?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Nessie

By this logic, the Senkakus to belong to an independent Ryukyu Kingdom. I don't see how that would bolster your China claims

Okinawa or Ryuku was independent before . It will be independent again in the future. They are watching Scotland indepedence movement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryukyu_independence_movement

By the logic, Taiwan and Hainan and all small chain Islands belong to Independent Ryuku Kingdom. I have never bolstered China claims is solid and concrete. Japan claim is less credible and even they have no Japanese name until 1895.

Is Terra Nullius Japanese name?

For the credibilty of your logic, Japan should claim Taiwan and Hainan as part of Okinawa.

Okinawa chain can extend as long as according the South China Sea map. If you leave Taiwan, it has no justification as Senkaku is part of Ryuku Islands.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Tony Ew Mar. 22, 2013 - 04:16AM JST No, I don't think China ever want to be confrontational. Remember in all my postings, I said China is a REACTIVE country. She REACTS to perceived provocations, real or imagined. Only she judge what she think does not infringe on her 'face'/sovereignty regardless of outsiders misperceptions.

I disagree. The military strategy is very similar to what Japan did to Russians in 1905, or the aggression during 1931-1945. China places immense value on blindsiding its adversaries. The idea is to inflict political and psychological shock on the enemy while scoring early battlefield victories. China's warfare is based on deception and attack where he is unprepared. The Chinese started and ended the 1962 war when India least expected it. They did much the same thing when they invaded Vietnam in 1979. China believe in hitting as fast and as hard as possible, as in their 1962 war against India. There is similarties from every military action of Communist China since 1949. China doesn’t balk at using military force for political ends. China has repeatedly set out to “teach a lesson” to adversaries so they will dare not challenge China’s interests in the future. China ended its Vietnam invasion and withdrew after one month, declaring that Vietnam had been sufficiently chastised.

The pattern has persisted. After U.S. pulled out of South Vietnam, China seized the Paracel Islands. In 1988, when Russia’s support for Vietnam had faded, China occupied the disputed Johnson Reef in the Spratlys. And in 1995, when the Philippines stood isolated after having forced the U.S. to close its major military bases at Subic Bay and elsewhere on the archipelago, China seized Mischief Reef. This is why the South Seas island dispute continues today.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Sfjp330, I really don’t see your point in the matter. Every country has declared its jurisdiction and built something on the islands it controls; Korea, Russia and Japan, they all did. Japan had people living on the disputed islands for years but eventually they all left. Now, you are saying they’ve all broken the law! We are talking about over a thousand Chinese people living on the island and making their livelihood there. And, whatever China did it was not recognized outside of China anyway, so it is a mute point.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

FlowersMar. 22, 2013 - 05:39AM JST as I understand Sansha belongs to China.

How can you say that? Where is the evidence? That is what China saids about all the disputed islands in East China Seas and South China Seas. China needs to follow international law to resolve a dispute with all the countries before building anything in a disputed island. Why do you think Vietnam and Philippines and other countries are protesting China’s assertiveness of disputed islands in the South China Sea, and they are accusing China of violation of international law. Thre must be a reason why these countries are declaring China’s actions as“invalid”. Sansha has 1,100 Chinese residents on 13km island. Even with the dispute, few years ago, China’s State Council decided and approved the establishment of the Sansha city to administer the Paracel and Spratly Islands.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

best defense is good offense, they should take Hainan Island

1 ( +1 / -0 )

sfjp330, as I understand Sansha belongs to China. You pointed out that there are post office, bank, supermarket, hospital, and airport there, so it must be a sizeable city. What ratio of the population consists of, Vietnamese, Chinese, or Filipinos? If the water there is nice, I think it should be opened for tourism. A little off topic. http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Sansha+China&qpvt=Sansha+China&FORM=IGRE

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

CrisGerSan Mar. 22, 2013 - 04:13AM JST Japan OWNS the island, bought legally and they are now part of Japan. The past is the past, no tame experts of either side can change facts of the past or the present. Japan owns the Sengoku islands and anyone else can call them whatever they want and trot out opinions but the owner of territory names them and can call them what they want.

Japan does not own it. Where does it say Japan owns it? Do you know anything about the 1972 Okinawa Agreement that grants Japan the rights of adminstration and not sovereignty? In 1978, there was agreement between China and Japan for Senkaku/Diaoyu islands dispute. At the time, PM Fukuda accepted that "the dispute shall be posponed". This was first Japanese representative to admit that there was dispute over the islands. Today, Japan goverment states "there is no dispute". So your back to square one.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

@sfjp330

No, I don't think China ever want to be confrontational. Remember in all my postings, I said China is a REACTIVE country. She REACTS to perceived provocations, real or imagined. Only she judge what she think does not infringe on her 'face'/sovereignty regardless of outsiders misperceptions.For China, her actions are designed to answer to her domestic audience in particular. Remember China have about 200 years of recent history being abused, so very very sensitive to any slights. So if ever China do as I imagine with Russia, it is an act out of desperation to send a message, not to be confrontational willy nilly. These days everybody ships are sinking, China, Japan, Russia, USA, Europe, nobody really wants to pick a fight!

So as I said, the islands defense plan should only exist on paper 'saber rattling', keep that a 'paper tiger' to prevent a melt down!

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

It is unclear to me if this is a Japan Today article or quoted from US Armed forces news service? Someone whoever wrote it needs to do their homework, the Chinese military HAVE ADMITTED the lock on of the Chinese Naval ship attack radar, it is NOT alleged. And all of the discussion is old and out of date really. Japan OWNS the island, bought legally and they are now part of Japan. The past is the past, no tame experts of either side can change facts of the past or the present. Japan owns the Sengoku islands and anyone else can call them whatever they want and trot out opinions but the owner of territory names them and can call them what they want. Time to move on to other more interesting topics I think for China is trying to take control of many places and the larger picture should be seen, this one instance is being used as a stalking goat and it just wont wash.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

flowers Mar. 22, 2013 - 03:29AM JST You know, these territorial disputes have been off and on for many decades already in a subdue manner, but they were all heated up just a couple of years ago so that China could be painted as an aggressor and hegemonist. The US wants Japan to be the leader in Asia instead of China. So, you can see all these provoking statements and biased news coming out of Japan to defame and suppress China.

This is why China needs more transparency in their goverment. Why don't China tell you about Sansha and ask how the Vietnam and Philippines goverment thinks about it? You know that there is China's newest city Sansha, a disputed remote island in the South China Sea barely large enough to host a single airstrip. Why would China build if it's disputed? It has a post office, bank, supermarket and a hospital, but little else. Welcome to Sansha, China's expanding to world's most disputed waters, portions of which are also claimed by Vietnam, the Philippines and other neighbors. The Philippines does not recognize the city or its jurisdiction, and Vietnam said China's actions violated international law. They say Sansha was stolen. Ask Vietnam and Philippines if China violated a relationship of trust, the answer is clear. And China talks about relationship and trust?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Tony EwMar. 22, 2013 - 02:50AM JST If there is ever a real joint US Japanese boots on the ground exercise on the disputed islands, Russia may join force with China to make a Joint Patrol of submarines and perhaps destroyers off the coast of Washington DC to simulate a 'take down' of DC and Pentagon in particular (the FBI is watching me!).

Do you actually believe this? You must be watching too much CCTV. Do you think China really wants to create direct confrontation with U.S.? And what benefit will China have by doing this? Russians already has many outdated surveillance subs for many decades throughout the east coast. Russians are actually taking softer stance toward Japan because of their economic problems. Since Russia is having problems with slowdown in EU, Putin is actually looking at negotiation with Japan to resolve the Kurile Islands issue and try to improve relations in trade and investments. The better Russian relations with can result in increase investments by Japan in the development of Siberia.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

gelendestrasse, you have a questioning mind that is very good. The point of all these started after the US declared a “pivot to Asia” policy in order to contain China. You know, these territorial disputes have been off and on for many decades already in a subdue manner, but they were all heated up just a couple of years ago so that China could be painted as an aggressor and hegemonist. The US wants Japan to be the leader in Asia instead of China. So, you can see all these provoking statements and biased news coming out of Japan to defame and suppress China. When there is no news, one has to be created as you noticed so that the public can be misled and stirred up with nationalism. You are right the issue is far beyond the islands disputes. What I am afraid of is by containing China the US will turn N. Korea to be another Iraq, as you may know so many innocent people were killed in the Iraq war and the war is still far from over as terrorism has increased so many folds. Do you really want to see Japanese and Korean people living in fear and suffering? So, who do you think we should blame?

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

@flowers

Here is what I think will make US Congress FLIP. If there is ever a real joint US Japanese boots on the ground exercise on the disputed islands, Russia may join force with China to make a Joint Patrol of submarines and perhaps destroyers off the coast of Washington DC to simulate a 'take down' of DC and Pentagon in particular (the FBI is watching me!). Now that will get their attention! The China Seas are infested with subs from US that remain hidden so most of us don't see the hidden danger. When joint Chinese Russian subs shows up around D.C maybe that will even the playing field. I hope the Pentagon understand very clearly the contingency plans must only exist on paper and not put into practice as this will rachet up the tensions considerably.

Really the Russian involvement is for their own self interest to prevent US upsetting the current status quo as she don't want US hegemony to strengthen.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Never say never. Communist Chinese leaders are unpredictable and preparing is best option for Japanese and US force.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

This is not big news. They have talked about this scenario several times before. Search the archive. Its only another message to China that there is no point for them to consider a simple occupation drill. In different words the statement is there to help the Chinese to now the rules of the game. As such it could lead to more balanced actions during the tensions. At the same time it is probably a message of resolve to North Korea. If the Chinese pick up on the message they may consider to abandon the hopeless standpoint of claiming sovereignty and start some kind of negotiation for explorations rights with Japan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You have to wonder how many troops could actually be stationed on the Senkakus. Doesn't look like much space to me. Seems like a tempest in a teapot that is brought up any time one side or the other wants a diversion. What the US is doing seeking a diversion is beyond me. What was the point of this information being made public? Everybody knows there are all sorts of plans and contingency plans and plans for plans. But making a public point of it? Why?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"What the heck, just bring back the imperial navy flag and start the public beheading contests while you're at it. Yes please take back the islands and cause WWIII Japan. Great idea."

@melonbarmonster:

Then what idea would you propose? Would you have a problem with Japan taking the initiative and stationing GSDF troops on the islands ahead of China trying to station some of it's troops on them? That way they would'nt have to "take them back" because they would already have them, right?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

"All the talk of Chinese aggression and bullying.... I guess now the truth is out. The Obama Regime trying to get us into some conflict with our neighbours by using force. The American Regime is the biggest bully the world will ever know, we need to keep a level head cause no one in Japan should die in any conflict instigated by America."

@Tiger_In_The_Hermitage:

Please explain exactly how Obama is "trying" to get us into a conflict? You do understand that the U.S. is bound to come to the defense of Japan don't you? And exatly how do you come to the conclusion that if a conflict were to break out between Japan and China, that the U.S. somehow instigated it?

5 ( +5 / -0 )

This statement may provoke China and give them excuse for bigger military build up.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Interestingly again, Senkaku became part of Oknawa Chain in 1895 of Sino Japanese war. What took it so long for Senkaku becoming part of Okinawa chain. Why was many years gap between 1879 to 1895? May be Japan was embarrassed about their intrusion.

By this logic, the Senkakus to belong to an independent Ryukyu Kingdom. I don't see how that would bolster your China claims.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

The Pentegon needs to understand that there needs to be a Contengency Plan in place to "Prevent China From Taking The Islands" and not a plan on what to do "After They Take the Islands".

Honestly, what's really going to happen if China does go forward and conduct an Amphibious Landing of Chinese Troops on the Senkakku Islands?

Will the U.S. Marines land and start Shooting at Chinese Troops? Or Vice Versa?

Could anyone imagine the Backlash it would have in the U.S. and abroad if U.S. Marines start getting Killed by Communist Chinese and shipped home in Flag Drapped Coffins while trying to "Retake an Island"?

Chinatowns across the U.S. would Vandalized with "Go Home Commie" messages spray-painted everywhere on Chinese Restaurants , Businesses, and Companies.

Stocks would begin to fall, Market Shares would rattle the second War Breaks Out between U.S./Japan Forces vs China.

No, this is probably the Contingency Plan: Fly in with V-22 Ospreys, Land not Marines but Diplomats armed with Google Maps, a U.N. Charter, The U.S./Japan Treaty and Highlighter Pens!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Mr Matsuyama, Professors Kiyoshi Inoue from Kyoto University, and Tadayoshi Murata have shown proof that they belong to China. Both published books about it. Some of their arguments are at:

http://www.skycitygallery.com/japan/diaohist.html

Another scholar from New Zealand University, professor Martin Lohmeyer, also presents evidence that historically China is the owner of these islands. His full thesis is at:

http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/10092/4085/1/thesis_fulltext.pdf

I hope this will help to clarify this problem. As much as I love Japan, I can not blindly side with it just because politicians exploit the situation for their own gains.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Many brain washed japanese extremists and chinese extremists were taught to believe that the issue can't be solved until " the final decisive war".... give me a break! It's not a big issue! and only those political players have been taking use of it for themselves' political benefit! Some people understood the US need to keep this issue alive, but can't you also see that your leaders also need it either? Everyone can say "the islets belong to us". ok, finish! that's it!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Thanks to Shintaro Ishihara. Now U.S have a chance to meddle AGAIN in Asia. To make sure U.S have no rival in world hegemony too soon. Sigh~

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Even though China claim such islands as their own, she doesnt have any evidences to prove their claim. While chinese newspaper published back 1950s, records, and maps made by China show those islands as part of Japan.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

The communists should just fold up their cards and go home before its too late.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Nessie

How many Jumbo planes or fire fighting tanks or Cargo trucks can park in Naha or Ishigaki? How large for them for accommodating non stop reinforcement and logistic supply?

You have to send your compliment to www.japan times.co.jp. Not to me! Distance and flying time were refereed from them.

When Okinawa chain Islands were annexed by Japan, not all Islands were grabbed at the same time. Firstly smaller Islands were started for annexation in 1872. Ryuku of main Island was became part of Japan in 1879.

In my eyes, Senkaku it is not the Chain Island of Okinawa. If we follow all dots of South China Sea map, it will reach to Hainan. Is Hainan also part of Okinawa chain?

Interestingly again, Senkaku became part of Oknawa Chain in 1895 of Sino Japanese war. What took it so long for Senkaku becoming part of Okinawa chain. Why was many years gap between 1879 to 1895? May be Japan was embarrassed about their intrusion.

The answer is read http://www.tokyoweekender.com/2012/09/senkaku-island-dispute/ again.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Piotr, your suggestion is reasonable. The problem is that the nationalism behind both belligerents goes against rationality. China, here, is being the aggressor and must desist.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

The best solution would be to give these islands to a third party. Historically many areas which witnessed many wars and different reigns developed own culture. But since the islands are uninhabited that doesn't make any sense. Why won't people just call this terrain "no man's land", anyway? That would be the best consensus (and probably the only consensus possible).

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

What the heck, just bring back the imperial navy flag and start the public beheading contests while you're at it. Yes please take back the islands and cause WWIII Japan. Great idea.

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

How much it cost in terms of lives and finances to retake these islands, and would it be worth it?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Does the concept of occupying tiny islands make strategic sense? In this day and age any life on the islands can be instantly exterminated with a couple of hundred million dollars worth of bunker busting smart bombs; readily available to the US or China (although not Japan). The only point in placing soldiers on the island would be to invite the other side to escalate the conflict by executing a massacre. I would guess that the US being at higher level of political and social maturity than China would not really be interested in sacrificing soldiers in that way for this particular island. And I am pretty sure that China would be. Therefore US and Japan are at a politically strategic disadvantage here.

I recommend considering the idea of drawing the line at Yonaguni, and moving forward on diplomacy, proposing a resource sharing strategy with China. In the meantime, forge alliances with the ex-colonial small countries in Southeast Asia who are being bullied by a China behaving like a colonial power, and bring up their cause in the UN; turn China's claim of being a victim of Japanese imperialism with regards to Senakakus back on themselves; put China on the moral defensive in the South Sea.

To achieve this kind of regional leadership would require some sacrifices from Japan, but they are small sacrifices, involving only minor material possessions and not personal freedom.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Interestingly Japanese self proclaimed territory or US pawned territory for communist China is very far away from Japanese colonized Okinawa chain.

170km from Ishigaki and 410km from Naha, Nathaw, but I can only admire the brazenness of your failed sleight of hand.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

What should the US and Japanese response be to a Chinese military invasion of Japanese territory?

Why should US transfered the land to opportunistic land grabber in 1972? If China was not Communist back them, Senkaku has a different administrator. Pls refer to

http://www.tokyoweekender.com/2012/09/senkaku-island-dispute/

Interestingly Japanese self proclaimed territory or US pawned territory for communist China is very far away from Japanese colonized Okinawa chain.

In the worst case scenario, US and Japan planes needed to be rapidly refueled in the Air.

Unlike them, PRC has luxury to send new planes without refueling. Pls refer to

The Chinese coast is 330 km from Uotsuri, the largest of the five Senkaku islets, a distance that China’s Jian-10 fighter jets are reportedly capable of covering in about 10 minutes.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/01/14/news/long-term-plan-for-senkaku-provocations-in-works/

-11 ( +1 / -12 )

Beijing and Tokyo both claim the islands.

Let's not forget the Taiwanese.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

What should the US and Japanese response be to a Chinese military invasion of Japanese territory?

Send a strongly worded letter of protest to the UN?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

This makes interesting reading after reading this article this morning,http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=9907 Hidden forces are at work. And who believes that the president runs the good ol US of A

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

@dcog9065,

Be wise and reasonable.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Nikkei is marching forward so i do not see any serious conflict (atleast) this year !

3 ( +5 / -2 )

It's very unlikely that any sort of conflict would arise from these islands. I see them more of a political tool for China; it creates tension between Japan and China any time they want, it also serves to unite the Chinese people against a foreign enemy (propaganda 101) therefore reducing civil tensions inside China.

I reckon these islands are too valuable a political tool for China to engage in a conflict over them. Going forward, we'll probably be seeing "rising tensions" over the islands every 2-3 month intervals to keep the Chinese population distracted.

16 ( +18 / -2 )

As Neil Young said, Let's roll!

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

"We have contingency plans and we discuss them with allies," a U.S. official told AFP speaking on condition of anonymity, saying it was "natural" that the two governments would confer on emergency scenarios given recent tensions.

There's nothing surprising here. It's in the interest of the United States to maintain the status quo.

16 ( +18 / -2 )

I'm growing tired with the use of 'Obama Regime'.

19 ( +21 / -2 )

All the talk of Chinese aggression and bullying.... I guess now the truth is out. The Obama Regime trying to get us into some conflict with our neighbours by using force. The American Regime is the biggest bully the world will ever know, we need to keep a level head cause no one in Japan should die in any conflict instigated by America.

-29 ( +6 / -36 )

Send in the Expendables.....

5 ( +8 / -3 )

This should settle the disputes over whether the U.S. will be involved. The Chinese had to be expecting something like this.

19 ( +22 / -3 )

But both sources said the U.S. government did not want to fuel tensions, and that the contingency planning would be only one of many topics on the agenda when top US and Japanese officers meet in Hawaii on Thursday.

So the USA does NOT want to FUEL tensions?? My guess is that the CHINESE do not really believe this??

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites